Specifications:Sigma's 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX is one of the EX Series lenses. It combines a fast f2.8-4 maximum aperture with ultra wide angle zoom lens of 17-35mm. It incorporates aspherical lens elements in the front, as well as rear lens groups, to correct spherical aberration. It also incorporates internal focusing to prevent deterioration of the optical quality at close distances and to eliminate rotation of the front barrel during focusing. A "perfect hood" is provided. The AF drive for Sigma SA and Canon AF S.L.R. cameras is equipped with a silent, responsive and fast Micro Hyper Sonic Motor (H.S.M.). The lens materials used in this new lens are lead and arsenic free ecological glass.

Light, good for landscapes, and GOOD for seascapes - not bending horizons. It is the best at 17mm - better then Nikon's 17-35mm 2.8 tank...

Cons:

Would not take LEE filter system wide angle adapter ring - which can be sorted...

I am 65 and this is the only plastic I have ever head in my bags - and I love it. I do not understand what some of these guys here are rambling about. SIGMA might not have the greatest quality control but, are we photographers or WHAT? Every lens has its purpose! And photographers by lenses to do certain jobs. Don't they? And, no photographer buys 17-35 zoom to photograph portraits. And, no photographer, even if he/she wanted to have a blurry portrait background desperately needs f2.8 THROUGHOUT to do so!!! And we who know it also know that if this lens was f2.8 we would also have to pay double (at least) money for nothing...

This lens is PLASTIC but it is tough little thing. I bought it at the time when they just came out (I have the original one - not "HSM" "DG", or whatever) and it still works flawlessly - after many years traveling across Canada and last 12 crisscrossing Australia. It is IF lens - and its front doesn't rotate. It is tight and neat, smallish - though it has 82mm front. Which is much better than 77mm (to avoid vignetting) if you want to use (any of) filter holder systems. The LEE has handy wide angle 82mm adapters... After thousands of slides i have no signs of molds or dust in it. Or on it. And photographers take care of their gear anyway. Don't they? Even if lenses are cheep - or just because of it. We do not buy "sturdy" lenses to throw them around either...

It is possible that I was lucky with my sample but, in any case , we do not need any lens SHARPER than this SIGMA to photograph landscapes (usually at f11 or higher). And this PLASTIC is very good at its wide and if you use f11 or f16. Unless we are about to print very large prints we will never notice the difference - if there is one, compare to much more expensive lenses. And today, when films/slides do not matter much, we also have that PHOTOSHOP thing handy for manipulating colors. If it is what some might be missing here. In my slides I did not notice any need for it. And, I do like rather "natural" colors anyway.

For the money we save on lenses like this we can buy another PLASTIC which is good for portraits only (STANDARD 100mm or so lens) - and still upgrade to the latest Photoshop too...

This lens is good for landscapes - and certainly so at those apertures appropriate for the job. If approached, treated and used with respect it can give excellent results. I had (and could just because it is plastic) to slightly grind down "clutches" for mounting the lens hood - to make the lens front good for use of LEE filter system (wide angle adapter ring would not go over it), but otherwise have no problem with its build or optical limitations. All lenses I have ever had have them, no matter how expensive. This one is "limited" to landscapes...

If we have no money to buy 5x more expensive Nikons or Canons - or do not know how to photograph with whatever we can buy, we do not have anyone else to blame but ourselves. Guys like SIGMA are there to help those who know...

May 25, 2014

peterlee01OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 30, 2013Location: United KingdomPosts: 0

Review Date: Aug 30, 2013

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

good price well built and on my D300 it pin sharp. not sure what problems others are having? yes the contrast does need at tweak but I would expect that at 17mm for a sub £1000 lens!

Cons:

it not f2,8 through out apart from that a great lens on the right body

Great lens for the price only shame is its not f2.8 through out it zoom range.

I used it on my Kodak DCS Pros(Full Frame) and on D300 and D2X (In cropped mode) and all are perfect at A4 print size.

Contrast does need a boost but at this price I would expect so.

I have several Sigma EX lens and none of them have disappointed, if you are comparing them to a top end Nikon or Canon L series at triple the price then yes you may be disappointed.

17mm - 35mm f8 excellent 17mm f2.8 very good 35mm f4 very good.

I would have been happy paying £250 for it.

Aug 30, 2013

Coach-ZOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 10, 2006Location: DenmarkPosts: 97

Review Date: Jul 12, 2010

Recommend? no |
Price paid: $125.00
| Rating: 3

Pros:

cheap

Cons:

Soft... REALLY soft

I bought this lens to replace my Canon 18-55mm IS lens thinking it would be a Sigma equivalent to the Canon 16-35mm lens..

I bought it used without actually doing any background search for the lens...

This is the softest lens I've ever owned, by far...

Jul 12, 2010

RudydGOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 7, 2003Location: BelgiumPosts: 99

Review Date: Nov 16, 2007

Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4

Pros:

hsm, price, range on FF, lightweight

Cons:

Soft!! Vignetting

Just had this lens to test it out. It could get it real cheap. Well, i don't want it, even for free!! It is incredible soft until f:8, vignetting on 5d is huge.
Maybe it is better on 1.6 crop, and for a low price it is maybe then acceptable?
I also used the 15-30 ex dg, and that lens is really 10x better!
I heard the 17-35 2.8-4.0 ex hsm DG version is better, but i would not buy without proper testing!

Nov 16, 2007

Bjorn BeheydtOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 22, 2007Location: BelgiumPosts: 0

Review Date: Mar 22, 2007

Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3

Pros:

Price

Cons:

Complete lack of sharpness, CA

I bought this lens the afternoon before I had an important evening shoot (I know, a stupid thing to do). I actually wanted to buy Canon's 17-40 f4L, but that one was not in stock. This was the only available alternative for my Eos 5D, so I decided to give it a try.
I used it plenty during the evening, having taken approximately 200 photo's with it, some with available light (at f2.8), but most of them with flash (f4 and f8).
The results where tearjerking, and I am not joking. I thanked the Lord for giving me the presence of mind to also take pictures with my 50mm f1.8 and my 70-200 f2.8 IS.
They day after, I decided to take the lens out for some serious testing. I used it all focal lengths, and all apertures up to f11 (I decided I don't have to test it at f22, as I will seldom use it), with and without flash. The results still was terrible. In total I shot about 300 pictures with it, and if 5 of them are sharp enough to show to a customer, I would be glad.
My advice: test this thing thoroughly before you buy it!

Mar 22, 2007

marty01_ukOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 15, 2006Location: United KingdomPosts: 3

Review Date: Aug 15, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

It was cheap(119 gbp) quite well built (not as good as l glass) and it also works on full frame cameras....

Cons:

Its soft at f2.8 but i shoot mainly weddings and the odd alnscape when i go walking, so its no big deal to me

I read the reviews here and thought it was sigmas usual quality control problems .....
My lens seems fine quiet motor fast acurate focusing (eos 3)
and it feels sturdy....
I got it for a pitance with the new dg version out so i thought i'd give it a try.....
Like everyone else i've found it's very soft at f 2.8 but i only need the large apature for my wedding work soft the softness helps there anyway...f5.6 and above and its very sharp a lovely lense...
I've stopped taking my l glass walking with me now as the wide angles shots are virtually indistinguishable from the sigma.....

I must admit though i seem to lose some contrast when used with my eos 5d but i might invest in the dg version considering the results achieved off this one...

This is the only complete DUD lens I have ever purchased. I actually sent it back and got another and there was no improvement. I used it verry little hoping I could figure out some sort of sweet spot, but I never managed to, maybe because it broke and was repaired, and then broke again... I am a Sigma fan, and I am lucky I didn't get soured on them from using this lens.

I’ve just returned my 17-35mm f2.8 EX of 10 days for a full refund, why? Like most of the reviewer’s have stated, “it’s just too soft”. The version I had wouldn’t focus all that good either, only on the best of days, weather wise, would it produce half decent results, even then, I expected better. Perhaps this was just a poor sample

I was offered the 17-35mm f2.8 DG version be way of a replacement. The focusing was way better and the images were much sharper, but in the end I went for the Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG instead.

My only advice to anyone thinking of buying this lens is to try-before-you-buy.
If your store won’t allow you too, take your digital storage card and shoot several images, in store, using all the lenses you have short listed. Go back home, study the results and only then go back and make your purchase.

Jun 3, 2005

microsaftOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 22, 2005Location: SwedenPosts: 1

Review Date: Mar 22, 2005

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $620.00
| Rating: 6

Pros:

Just want a heads up. There is a DG version of this lens out now, but that one isn't listed here... so what you read could be either... ???

Cons:

see above

add a topic for the DG forum aswell and we can start to compare apples and oranges...

Mar 22, 2005

doctoritOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 17, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 138

Review Date: Feb 25, 2005

Recommend? no |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 6

Pros:

great build quality at this price range

Cons:

too soft

I jumped at the chance to have an f/2.8 lens at 17mm, but it's just too soft at wide apertures. I did some back to back comparison at 28mm with my Canon 28-135 IS lens, and the non-L Canon lens was sharper. Not too happy about that.

I have had good luck with all Sigma lenses, except this one. Maybe this copy just isn't that sharp, but from what I've read, maybe not. Right now, I think I'll save some $ and switch to the Canon 17-40L f/4.

Zoom ring turns the opposite of Canon's (not a big deal), AF can be jumpy in low light situations

A fair number of users on this forum gave thumbs down to this lens with the exception of the poster before me. I spotted this lens in a local shop and the store manager indicated if I didn't like it, I could return it within seven days. Fair enough.

Personally, I think it's a good lens. I have not experienced some of the problems other posters have indicated. I have seen very little if any evidence of softness at any F-stop. Images right out of the camera, even those shot without a strobe and in the shade have good contrast.

It has a lightweight build and although it's not built as well as a Canon L series, it costs half and performs reasonable well. Overall, I am pleased with it.

Oct 13, 2004

masterfrodoOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 27, 2004Location: United KingdomPosts: 526

Review Date: Jun 27, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

I have used this lens for the past year and have been very impressed. I use the lens with a Fuji S2 so I use the central section but have had enlargements made up to 20"x14" and am very happy with the results.
I use the lens mostly for press work and have had no problems with sharpness at any aperture. Maybe I have a good lens as most people on here don't give it a good review.

Cons:

None. Given the price, there is nothing out there to touch it. OK, you could spend a lot more and get a Nikkor lens and get a 'little' more crispness but in my line of work I doubt I would notice it.

This is a peculiar case of zoom - it performs OK (but not terrific) on film but is bad in almost every aspect when used on a digital body. Not sure if this is due to the light hitting the image sensor at low angle or because of some other reasons, the truth is that 17-35 doesn't go well with the Canon 10D, D30, D60 not to mention the elders, 1D or 1Ds.
The filter size is 82mm, which is rather unusual and the front element is rather "bulby" making the usage of filters (such as a polarizer or gradual ND) an adventurous business.
Wide open the lens exhibits severe vignetting which doesn't seem to go even at f8 or f11. Soft all over at f2.8, it gets better after 5.6 but no matter the aperture the corners will stay soft up to f16.
Eventually I ended up selling this and buying the 17-40/4L, which is a jewel from every point of view. If you're thinking of buying it to go with a digital body, I'd suggest to save up for a 17-40/4L or get one of the dedicated Nikon DG wide angles.

Apr 18, 2004

MarcLOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 4, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 182

Review Date: Sep 19, 2003

Recommend? no |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 4

Pros:

cost

Cons:

slow and unpredictable AF, noisy, somewhat soft, slight underexposure

I bought this lens with my D30. I didn't really use it all that much except at F8 and above because of it tends to be a little soft when opened wide. A couple of months ago, the aperature diaphragm quick working all together, which I understand is a fairly common problem w/Sigmas. I'll have it repaired, but then it's going on Ebay. I bought the Canon 17-40 F4L to replace it.

If it weren't for the aperature diaphragm problem after so little use, I'd say this lens is a pretty decent bargain overall, but now I wonder.

Sep 19, 2003

FredericBOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 22, 2003Location: United StatesPosts: 248

Review Date: Aug 1, 2003

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6

Pros:

Cost,
Focal Range,
Sharpness when stopped down(at least 2 to 3 stops)

Cons:

very soft at 17mm and / or if not stopped down,
HSM noisy and threatening to die after 4 years of use (not intense)

I would recommend it but under some restrictions:

*use it w/ manual focus and a table of hyperfocal distenses for as mentionned above, AF is unprecise and unpredictable (pre-focus on the same spot 3 times and you'll get 3 different distances) and does not seem to last too long.

*not fit for reporting for it takes at least 2 to 3 stops down to express its potential for sharpness - if you use it for landscape at F:11 or 16 it is a great lens.

It seems that digital brings the worst out of it when it is really decent on film at f:5.6 or up.